Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

First off, I write "forum pet peeve", because it is something I have most frequently read on these forums, though you do also see it used on other sites (such as YouTube, blogs, and so forth).

What I mean is this: it pops up in discussions when discussing the martial aspects of Aikido, and it's realistic use in a self-defense scenario. In the mists of discussion, someone acknowledges that (their) Aikido will not physically work, or be effective, against an opponent in a realistic self-defense scenario. Yet them, almost without fail, they will follow up with "But Aikido has taught me never to get into a fight - that is the ultimate self-defense!", or perhaps a variation that often goes like "Aikido has taught me to stop fights without the use of physical actions, that is the ultimate Martial Art!".
You also often see this pop up, in questions from people unaffiliated with Aikido (yet), asking questions about the art on this forum, or looking for feedback on whether they should start practicing Aikido or not.

I think it's fantastic if people have learned to avoid fights. But that simply doesn't have anything to do with Martial Arts, or Self-Defense. It is weaseling out of the dilemma and discussion. Yoga may very well teach you the inner calm you need to never get into a fight, but that doesn't make Yoga a Martial Art, or Self-Defense. I, personally, have been able to avoid fights my entire life, simply by repeating the mantra "Oh, I'm sorry!" (whether I truly am or not, is utterly irrelevant) over and over and over again, in all hostile situations. But that doesn't mean that saying sorry should be considered a Martial Art, or can realistically be considered self-defense. Nor do I understand why people need to train Martial Arts, to learn how to say "I'm sorry". I can only imagine the amount of mental instability you would need to have, for Military/Martial Art/Sports training to be needed, just to calm your inner anger. Besides, I'm sure that anger management courses would probably have suited you better anyway. Or perhaps just general courses in conflict de-escalation?

At this point, I'm sure some will chime in and say "well that's just your definition of Martial Arts/Self-Defense". And no, it's really not:

Oxford Dictionary
Martial Arts
various sports, which originated chiefly in Japan, Korea, and China as forms of self-defence or attack, such as judo, karate, and kendo

Oxford Dictionary
Self-Defence
the defence of one's person or interests, especially through the use of physical force, which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime

http://dictionary.reference.com/
Martial Arts
any of various philosophies of self-defence and techniques of single combat, such as judo or karate, originating in the Far East

http://dictionary.reference.com/
Self-Defense
the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant: the art of self-defense.

People can't just make up new definitions for words, to make them mean what they want them to mean. And even if you COULD argue that "self-defense" might include things like verbal de-escalation, it is clearly not what was originally intended to be discussed in those, ehm, discussions.

This is not a matter of Aikido being martially effective or not. Nor do I have anything against people that train Aikido, or any Martial Art, or anything in general, purely for the philosophical or spiritual benefits that they may feel they gain from it. But I really wish people would stop making threads like "I used Aikido in a fight." - "Oh? How did it go?" - "Well, someone was being really aggressive, and I calmed them down. That's true Aikido."
That has nothing to do with Aikido in particular - it's a common social trait available in most calm and sensible human beings.

If people wish to discuss such benefits specifically, that's all fine and dandy. And as I said, if people want to train for that specifically, if they feel that's what they get out of it, that's all well and good. But please, stop using it as a way to weasel out of the actual questions being asked.
Stop making the questions into what you want them to mean, just so you can reply with the answer you want. It is not only dishonest (as well as utterly irrelevant) to the person asking the question, it is also just horribly frustrating to read.

And last, again, just to stamp out some frustrating replies before they get written:As I've said multiple times by now - If you wish to train purely for that, go for it. If you feel that's what you're getting out of your training, and that's fine with you, good for you. I have nothing against such practices, nor anything against such people. Just please stop twisting questions into meaning something different, just so you can reply with the answers that personally suite you the best.

People can't just make up new definitions for words, to make them mean what they want them to mean. And even if you COULD argue that "self-defense" might include things like verbal de-escalation, it is clearly not what was originally intended to be discussed in those, ehm, discussions.

of course we can. we made up new definitions all the time. that's why we have dictionary. it's full of made up definitions. just take the word "bad". when i talk to folks and they use the term bad, i have to ask a few more times to make certain to know which bad are they talking about. for example, someone said "he's so bad!". i would wonder if that is good or bad.

also, you mentioned "originally intended". you were the founder? just wondering if you are, because only the founder would know what it was originally intended for. i remembered reading history, you know how bad history were written, that the original intention of dynamite, that Nobel wanted, was for construction, but we seemed to stray pretty far from that intention.

very strange about human, we just seemed to make up stuffs to suit our needs. we got to stop doing that. you just can't trust them human. now, them alien from Uranus, we can trust them stay on the right route.

Yep, as Phi says, the meaning of language is defined by usage, dictionaries come along after the event. Witness the recent inclusion of "literally" in the OED when used in a figurative/metaphorical sense e.g. "seeing the demo of those skills literally blew me away". We may not like it but that's tough cos it's how this stuff works, if enough people use the language the "wrong" way it ceases to be wrong.

As for the "never got in a fight therefore my SD works" I have some sympathy; any good SD course will have a lot of stuff about risk avoidance, attitude, awareness, posture, gait, body language, eye contact, etc. etc. not least since the return on investment of time on this stuff is much higher than it is on learning a few basic escapes, strikes, etc. If you need to be martially/street effective as quickly as possible because you're going into a high risk environment then you should have access to the appropriate professional training e.g. armed forces, police, prison guard, etc.

On the other hand if you want to go looking for a fight to test your skills that's easy enough to achieve, in this country you just hang around town/city centres after the pubs close and act like a dick.

I see no problem with applying principles found in aikido such as blending with incoming energy, redirecting it to a harmonious outcome, etc. to one's working or domestic life, if people find that useful and relevant and it helps the world to be a more peaceful place then great.

of course we can. we made up new definitions all the time. that's why we have dictionary.

There you go, changing the question to fit what you want it to mean, so you can go and defend it using the definitions you want, instead of going by what was clearly the actual intended meaning of it.
You're discussing the changing of words over time. I'm clearly discussing the usage of words in present time.
And no, you can't just make up a new meaning of a word, and say that's now how it works. That shows a clear misunderstanding on your part, on how language works, and what words are actually added to dictionaries.

Good on you though, to completely and utterly disregard the point (which was mentioned several times) throughout the post.

Quote:

Phi Truong wrote:

also, you mentioned "originally intended". you were the founder?

Perhaps it was poorly written on my part, but I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the "originally intended" question posted in those threads? I thought that was clear, as I never mentioned the foundations of Aikido, O Sensei, or anything else like it at any point up until then.

Quote:

Paul Funnell wrote:

As for the "never got in a fight therefore my SD works" I have some sympathy; any good SD course will have a lot of stuff about risk avoidance, attitude, awareness, posture, gait, body language, eye contact, etc. etc. not least since the return on investment of time on this stuff is much higher than it is on learning a few basic escapes, strikes, etc. If you need to be martially/street effective as quickly as possible because you're going into a high risk environment then you should have access to the appropriate professional training e.g. armed forces, police, prison guard, etc.

I'm not sure if you're just responding casually with your own random thoughts here, or if that was meant as a reply to my post. If it was meant as a reply to me, what exactly are you replying to?

Quote:

Paul Funnell wrote:

I see no problem with applying principles found in aikido such as blending with incoming energy, redirecting it to a harmonious outcome, etc. to one's working or domestic life, if people find that useful and relevant and it helps the world to be a more peaceful place then great.

Are your purposefully disregarding my last few paragraphs, or did you just not finish reading my post? Or am I missing something here?

But I really wish people would stop making threads like "I used Aikido in a fight." - "Oh? How did it go?" - "Well, someone was being really aggressive, and I calmed them down. That's true Aikido."

People need validation. They've spent lots of time, effort and money in their training so they fall into some kind of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy attributing to Aikido their success at avoiding fighs instead of common sense, education or fear.

So for me:
1. "Self-Defense" is principally political terminology. It is a nice term that addresses a not-so-nice situation. It is a proactive response to a perceived threat. The [legal] problem is the action is non-specific and the threat is perceived.
2. "Self-Defense" is used socially to promote empowerment over the natural anxiety of yielding bodily control to another. In this sense, the term has been largely abused in my opinion.

At its root, "self defense" is a justifiable assault. The typical claim through martial arts is presented as "Learn to [commit assault]. If you know how to [commit assault] then you can pro-actively [commit assault] if you perceive yourself to be in danger of being assaulted." Usually, there is a tag that also claims, "learn to better understand when you perceive to be in danger. And, learn when and how best to [commit assault] to minimize the injury to your partner."

A martial art should specifically train a method of fighting. In this sense, a martial art should empower its practitioners to effectively assault another person(s). Some systems also package a philosophical component to address the experiential questions of when and why and to what extent.

I think I have said before that I feel martial arts, aikido specifically, often uses self-defense as a marketing tool to reach out to those whose anxiety over their well-being has caused them to take action. To be fair, many of these people often to not make a commitment to train once they address their anxiety (either by realizing they were tricked, or reaching a period of commitment that decreases their level of anxiety). Some will align with their training and incorporate it into their life.

Although, verbal conflict resolution is a recognized tactic of many modern self-defense programs that are legitimate. Its another tool with which you can resolve a conflict. Strategy games like chess and go were once classified as martial arts, too. Don't overlook strategic training just because its not physical.

People need validation. They've spent lots of time, effort and money in their training so they fall into some kind of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy attributing to Aikido their success at avoiding fighs instead of common sense, education or fear.

Although, verbal conflict resolution is a recognized tactic of many modern self-defense programs that are legitimate. Its another tool with which you can resolve a conflict. Strategy games like chess and go were once classified as martial arts, too. Don't overlook strategic training just because its not physical.

I certainly don't! I thought I expressed that in a few lines of the original post, if it wasn't clear, then I apologize. However, I do think it's a cop out response, when asked whether a martial art can be used for self-defence or not, or when saying that they used their martial art for self-defence, and then refer to conflict de-escalation.

Conflict avoidance, and de-escalation, is more a matter of common sense (hmm, probably shouldn't go up and call that drunk hooligan a twat right now!), and diplomacy (Oh? I called you a twat? I'm very sorry, I was clearly talking about that other drunk guy! I do apologize!). Certainly key points in self-defence, in the bigger picture, but obviously not what people are asking about when in the context of martial arts (without clearly specifying so).

I think it's fantastic if people have learned to avoid fights. But that simply doesn't have anything to do with Martial Arts, or Self-Defense. It is weaseling out of the dilemma and discussion. Yoga may very well teach you the inner calm you need to never get into a fight, but that doesn't make Yoga a Martial Art, or Self-Defense. I, personally, have been able to avoid fights my entire life, simply by repeating the mantra "Oh, I'm sorry!" (whether I truly am or not, is utterly irrelevant) over and over and over again, in all hostile situations. But that doesn't mean that saying sorry should be considered a Martial Art, or can realistically be considered self-defense. Nor do I understand why people need to train Martial Arts, to learn how to say "I'm sorry". I can only imagine the amount of mental instability you would need to have, for Military/Martial Art/Sports training to be needed, just to calm your inner anger. Besides, I'm sure that anger management courses would probably have suited you better anyway. Or perhaps just general courses in conflict de-escalation?

At this point, I'm sure some will chime in and say "well that's just your definition of Martial Arts/Self-Defense". And no, it's really not . . .

Well, then there's the case in which an established martial art codifies de-escalation and other non-combative tactics into its syllabus, and treats them as part of a continuum of self-defense techniques -- up to and including lethal force. From Hakkoryu.com

Quote:

In Hakkoryu, there is indeed no technical skill without a spiritual determination to carry on without hesitation to life or death.

. . .

In general, Hakkoryu Jujutsu practitioners endeavor to prevent acts of violence before they occur. This is a primary belief in Hakkoryu. We say, gIdomazuh or gno challengeh which includes this idea. The first set of instruction in Hakkoryu is proper Rei. While the physical form consists of instruction in correct etiquette in a dojo and other Japanese settings, the principle must be more fully explained by Hakkoryu Shihan. Such explanation should discuss the importance of respecting others. Its form might manifest itself in acts of politeness, courtesy, empathy, flexibility, and simply enough, smiling. Thinking and acting in such a manner towards others may be the best and simplest form of self-protection available. After this first Hakkoryu lesson, probably ninety-five percent of situations that lead to violent actions can be prevented. The rest of Hakkoryu is for use where such an approach is not practical or proves ineffective.

Hakkoryu Waza (Techniques)

The very first basic technique in the Hakkoryu Shodan Kata is named gHakko Dori.h One of the lessons it contains is the principle on how to escape. Should an attack be imminent or occurring, this art teaches methods to neutralize, avoid, or escape from strikes, grabs, and other types of physical dilemmas. In the dojo, physical techniques of escape are taught, but the principle may be expanded to everyday common sense actions such as just crossing the street if you see trouble ahead.

Even within the shodan kata, there is a waza that expressly calls for the tori/nage to smile and laugh out loud to escape a choke, and set up a joint break and throw. So, part of the continuum is using non-combative techniques to cause distraction, for example, to help facilitate more traditional jujutsu techniques if you can't just walk away.

Although, verbal conflict resolution is a recognized tactic of many modern self-defense programs that are legitimate. Its another tool with which you can resolve a conflict. Strategy games like chess and go were once classified as martial arts, too. Don't overlook strategic training just because its not physical.

I agree with this. Not fighting doesn't mean you will avoid a fight. You do not avoid a fight, it's just that the aggressor has lost the will to fight that it's the aggressor that avoids the fight.

Being a silent person, I was bullied by a manager. Well he thought he could bully me. Several of my other colleagues were not so lucky.

It was one of the most difficult things one could experience imho. Psychological fights are more difficult than physical. I'd like a physical fight more actually after this ordeal. It stopped after a few months and I can only attribute it to applying aikido "principles" and didn't even realize it after he stopped. I've been practicing aikido for 23 years.
Did I try to avoid the fight, no. I fought and was ready to give up everything and fight him with everything I've got just to give him a taste of his own medicine. I thought if I go down, he will go down with me,

Treat the bully as uke.
Do not attack him head on but step out of the way and lead him (as well as HR)
Apply psychological atemi ( this also applies to "physical" aikido) to distract uke, to lessen his will in continuing his aggression
When in the presence of bully, think that you are in strong kamae and transmit this to him that you are not a pushover
Use his aggression against him
Don't think of winning or losing.
Do not harm your opponent when you "throw"(eg give evidence against him), although I was ready to smash his teeth in. (this is because of HR reasons)
Lead his mind
Timing is very critical
Relax and transmit this to HR and bully

Even with the practice of aikido, one's progression does move from the physical principles to its psychological counterpart.

I guess the bottomline is that you do not avoid the fight, you are ready to fight you just "transmit" something to the aggressor that he loses interest in continuing his aggression because if he continues the fight he will lose. Well, that's just my understanding of what's ultimate. A kind of psychological atemi that even a lot of shihans teach.

Phillip, often training in a martial art will give the practitioner the confidence and the ability to deescalate the episode without physical action - something that might not be possible or practical without the underlying training. I found the ability to deescalate a conflict much easier as a police agent for decades a valuable tool - one that might not have been possible without the specific defensive tactics training and all the cool toys they gave us to use. I certainly could have used the physical training techniques, the chemical agents, the impact weapons, the firearms to resolve the conflicts I encountered, but the ability to apprehend the suspect without those actions depended on the underlying training completely. From my view, it is hard to separate the two concepts. Smashing and bashing are easy; not having to smash and bash is harder and based entirely on the ability to smash and bash if necessary. Perhaps this idea doesn't fit in your dictionary view, but would you agree that they are clearly related?

I'm not sure if you're just responding casually with your own random thoughts here, or if that was meant as a reply to my post. If it was meant as a reply to me, what exactly are you replying to?

Perhaps it was poorly written on my part, but I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the original subject of this thread.

Quote:

Philip Zeplin-Frederiksen wrote:

Are your purposefully disregarding my last few paragraphs, or did you just not finish reading my post? Or am I missing something here?

No, I read it all.

Quote:

"As I've said multiple times by now - If you wish to train purely for that, go for it. If you feel that's what you're getting out of your training, and that's fine with you, good for you. I have nothing against such practices, nor anything against such people.

This is just a little patronising, all these people still not getting it in spite of your repeated attempts to enlighten...

Quote:

Just please stop twisting questions into meaning something different, just so you can reply with the answers that personally suite you the best."

This seems to be the whole gist of your argument or objection but I'm not sure exactly what threads/posts you're referring to here and if the arguments that people are presenting are along the lines of Aikido being useful to them in avoiding or de-escalating conflict I'm not sure you've presented a coherent argument as to why this isn't a legitimate experience or perspective (for them).

As it happens, I somewhat agree with you that if it's clear someone is asking a question about physical self-defense, answering by referring to other kinds of self-defense is kind of changing the subject.

But some people don't agree with you about that distinction. And a great many more are perfectly happy to change the subject a little bit, to expand it in ways that many people find interesting.

So I'm not sure what you're really asking with this thread. No one's going to suddenly say "you know what, you were right all along; I just didn't see it until you explained it one more time." . Because as far as I can tell it's not that they don't understand you; they either disagree or don't care.

i would be the first one to admit that i take martial arts, like aikido, so i don't get into fights which is the ultimate self-defense. so far so good since i haven't got into fights yet, if you don't count fighting in tournaments as fighting or kumite in dojo as fighting, then i have done pretty good. god forbid if i have to defense myself, some of the stuffs might not even going to work. have you ever defend against drunken ninja monkey strapping with explosive vest and with a dead-ape switch? i don't think anything in my martial arts repertoire would work. come to think of it, i might have to pack some banana. one can't be too careful these days. bad enough that there are kids running around with automatic riffles. it's worst with drunken ninja monkey. wait! i shouldn't use the word monkey, right?!!!

Doesn't the Category a thread is started in demand a related response? It seems like there's some sort of implied rule. Obviously, it depends on the question. But this thread is in the General category, so is a more general answer okay here, as opposed to if it were in the Technique category?

Well, there are those who would argue that Aikido shouldn't be considered a martial art because of the whole philosophy, deescalation aspect.

The problem with definitions is that they are ultimately something imposed on a messy, complicated world. In some cases things can be easily defined. In others, well, not so easy. Not so solid. Not so simple.

But then again this discussion has been had 1000 times already. You're not the first to say it and certainly won't be the last. Suffice to say a lot of people have a lot of opinions and most of them aren't even starting with the same definitions you so kindly provided. So just imagine how far afield the discussion tends to roam.

All that said I'll go back to counting angels on this head of a pin. That's one, two, thuh-reeeeee....

Seriously, we could talk about this for days on end with nobody being happy and no conclusion to be reached. Sure, it's a martial art for some folk. Sure, some are more flowery than others. But when most can't even agree as to what Aikido "is", well, best of luck.

Jon Reading brings up very good points as always and I, of course, agree with them concerning the perspective of assault. For me, it is primarily about the physical action that is necessary to be called a martial art.. Yes, psychological factors are involved and yes there is a psychological aspect to training and conflict...no doubt. But, if you strip away things down to the base elements, what controls the psychology are two things...the willingness and the ability to take physical action as necessary.

The psychological aspects or qualities are largely secondary or a by product of physicality. So, we must be willing and able to do something physical in whatever situation.

Going to the issue of the dynamic of a fight. I tend to focus on the model of OODA, observe orient, decide, and act. It is essentially a decision loop and if we understand it provides a frame work in which we can judge or assess what we do physically in a situation.

in most training is we perceive the conditions or the situation we are in when we train.. We have this idea, for example, that we are reaching for our car keys in a parked garage and we are grabbed from behind. Of we are confronted by a bully in a bar that won't allow us to back down from a fight.

Two good scenarios, but how well do we actually set the conditions up when we train? Do we assume a high degree of initial failure in our physicality? That is, does that person physically have the upper hand?

I think this is were we fail many times in our training as we assume we have more control than we do. i.e we are way, way behind in the decision loop, and we really do not have good initial actions or solutions to solve the problem physically. Barring that, we really cannot deal with the situation pschyologically nor can we really do much to "de-escalate" as we like to discuss in aikido so much.

so, we need to come up with ways to gain back that control physically. I think this is where our practices should spend 80 percent of our time. If we are doing this, then I think this is true self defense. We have lost control and we simply are working back to "stasis". This is my definition of Self Defense.

As Jon points out, once we go beyond that, well then we are entering into a phase of illegal assault. Yes, it is still assault while you are in a phase of gaining back control...the difference is I think you can call it justifiable assault.

We can even use pre-emptive assault as long as we can demonstrate that we felt that there was no other way to resolve the situation because of impending danger. That is, you "jump" the OODA loop or decision cycle and ACT before your opponent puts you behind.

However, I think there is much in the process that can be done pre-emptively that does not involve assault. for example, in the going to your car in the garage scenario.....don't go alone. Park in well lit area, if you see something strange, disrupt the cycle by going back inside the building.

Yes, these are all part of the cycle and continuum....but we don't practice these things in a dojo because common sense tells us they are not a part of the physical realm of martial practice.

So, it kind of bothers me when someone comes up with the solution set "I never got in a fight...as the ultimate self defense." and essentially uses that as an excuse to practice substandard things in a dojo where it should be primarily about the physical aspects of a fight.

If this is an area of concern for us, we should be practicing failure over and over. Understanding our physical limitations (and emotional), through being in positions that are very very bad. your own the ground, he is on your back, being choked, pinned against a wall...all those things and figure out ways to get out of them, turn the tables, and take back control.

Of course, we can also practice the esoteric stuff too that I think is interesting and fun, challenging, stimulating and intellectual as a form of budo. There is also much to be gained there as well, however, primarily we should always remember that first and foremost it is about the physical, violent nature of imposing wills.

Dear All.
I may be in a minority of one when I state that this type of blog bores me stiff.The endless comments about whether or not aikido is a martial art and is effective is for me a waste of time.
i would rather spend my valuable time acquiring the skills to defuse any incident which could escalate into violence. Surely this is a better idea than getting into a situation whereby either you or the other party might get seriously injured or worse? At the same time being a belt and braces type of guy I would encourage people to master their own chosen art to enable them to neutralize /control any potential assault on their person.
Common sense should prevail.No matter how good you think you are there is always someone bigger, stronger , faster and meaner than you .Better to use brain not brawn unless its absolutely essential to use brawn rather than brain.Cheers, Joe.

I may be in a minority of one when I state that this type of blog bores me stiff.The endless comments about whether or not aikido is a martial art and is effective is for me a waste of time.

That's good to know! In the future, you might want to read the post before commenting though.
First line, third paragraph from the bottom:
"This is not a matter of Aikido being martially effective or not. Nor do I have anything against people that train Aikido, or any Martial Art, or anything in general, purely for the philosophical or spiritual benefits that they may feel they gain from it."
Heck, as far as I can tell, you're the first person in this thread, to even bring up the "is Aikido effective" question.

Quote:

Joe Curran wrote:

i would rather spend my valuable time acquiring the skills to defuse any incident which could escalate into violence. Surely this is a better idea than getting into a situation whereby either you or the other party might get seriously injured or worse?

As one of my good friends once said to me: "It's fantastic that you want to live in peace, and never hurt anyone. But not everyone else is like that."
(Physical) Self-defense is obviously trained for situations where de-escalation is not possible. You can't talk your way out of every single situation. I'm sure that training in verbal de-escalation would be (90% of the time) an utter waste of time in rape prevention, as an example.

Others have made fantastic posts here, sadly I'm a bit short on time right now, but I'll hopefully get to reply to a few others later today, or tomorrow

I agree with Tokyo Zeplin. I have to wonder if the people making the claims that aikido would not work in a "real" fight have much experience training aikido? Experience fighting? My guess would be probably not. Then add in the "what if this and what if thats" and my third favorite "resistance," in a "real" fight.

Test it out? Sure, and you don't have to be the agressor to do it. You do have to be in control though and realize the actions you take (or the other person/s take/s) to escalate or deescalate the situation, and realize that no martial arts is the be all end all. It isnt the martial arts, but the martial artist, IMO, and that is only after many, many, many years of training.

On a different note, picking apart the definition of aikido, or martial arts as a crux of discussion here seems to me anyways, serve no purpose.

So, it kind of bothers me when someone comes up with the solution set "I never got in a fight...as the ultimate self defense." and essentially uses that as an excuse to practice substandard things in a dojo where it should be primarily about the physical aspects of a fight.

If this is an area of concern for us, we should be practicing failure over and over. Understanding our physical limitations (and emotional), through being in positions that are very very bad. your own the ground, he is on your back, being choked, pinned against a wall...all those things and figure out ways to get out of them, turn the tables, and take back control...primarily we should always remember that first and foremost it is about the physical, violent nature of imposing wills.

As far as I can tell the OP is not asking a question, he is just expressing his "pet peeve".......so, he is just venting on this subject.....No response required............

Sure, but if he's expecting to be able to just vent about what he thinks and not have a dozen people chip in with 'well _I_ think...' then he would have to have not notice that he's wandered into a discussion forum rather than a blog page.

Sure, but if he's expecting to be able to just vent about what he thinks and not have a dozen people chip in with 'well _I_ think...' then he would have to have not notice that he's wandered into a discussion forum rather than a blog page.

The premise is a bit of a strawman -- not that, I'm sure, there aren't people for whom the subject of conflict avoidance and deescalation is only a conversational dodge to avoid close scrutiny of ineffective techniques. Who knows, maybe there are a gazillion such people. But when you start a discussion by asserting that this behavior is prevalent on "these forums", you might be due for a little uncomfortable scrutiny yourself.